Immunity decision out

The POTUS remains subject to the law. The SCOTUS basically offered the lower court some structural guidance in analyzing actions taken by the occupant of the WH.

...just a damn shame ain't gonna be enough time to apply it b4 the election...I mean damn....if only DOH! sought to indict DJT BEFORE he announced he was going to run for office again...

Why then it wouldn't be so transparent that he sought to deploy the justice system as a political weapon...and the judges might have sought to expedite the process, rather than letting "...the wheels of justice turn slow." (Surely y'all have heard that one before, no?)

Doncha just hate when the law gets in the way of abusing the law!?!?

 

Do you realize how dumb this rant sounds? If they had indicted him after he announced he was running again, you'd be making that case instead, right? According to you, anyone who might run for president should be immune, huh?

 

Wouldn’t be so sure of that. I recall a crazed righty on here accusing me of being an elitist because I consistently used the British spelling of a few words. I thought that was a very odd thing to even notice, let alone call someone out over.

In either case, I don’t really care about such things. Although I had long noticed right wing media pushing that particular term hard, and for very obvious and predictable (propaganda) reasons. I wasn’t going to call anyone out over using a word, even though obviously I find its usage quite lame. I was merely replying to your “PSA”.

 

Im so confused. They didnt say he had immunity from calling the secretary of state and pressuring him to commit election crimes in GA. They didnt say stealing documents is a presidential duty. About the only one that could be affected is the Jan 6 one, perhaps. Am I missing something?

 

TBL the term usefully captures one narrative, where there are basically 2 conflicting natratives, to wit:

Trump is a criminal, and all the POTEII before him (especially Doh! Biden, who actually chucked a rock when Jesus challenged: "...let he who is without sin...") are clean as the wind driven snow,

vs

Trump is being prosecuted bc he poses a political threat to the Democrat NAZI party.

C'est la vie.

 

Poster assures us of his belief in a corrupt judicial system with this post. Claiming the judges adjust arbitrarily change their court per political purposes. The unknowing poster claims " Why then it wouldn't be so transparent that he sought to deploy the justice system as a political weapon." Of course without evidence because poster is a Con. Then ends the sentence with a claim that courts themselves are corrupt anyway. One might surmise the thought for Maga/Cons: is "we're corrupt, thus everyone else is as well"

 

Other than wasting time (service to Trump), this doesn’t seem to actually change a damn thing in those cases.

The main issue seems to be they’ll have to go back and litigate official acts vs unofficial acts, and Trump will appeal, and if necessary the Supreme “court” would again drag its feet on appeal.

 

Nah, but I do realize how angry y'all sound...

Btw, Trump wasn't indicted until AFTER he announced he was running again. He announced in Nov '22; first indictment came down March '23.

Thought I made that clear; apologies if the misunderstanding was on me.

 

Tell me how many times you used the word "lawfare" regarding a Trump case or any case before today

 

Zero, here (that I can recall off top of my head). Happy?

Doesn't mean I wasn't well familiar with it.

Whatever bro...plant your flag on da lawfare hill!

LMAO!

 

Trump actually did those things. There were fake electors schemes, with team Trump at the center. There was a riot on 1/6, with Trump at the center. There were calls to various states to “find” votes or just toss votes, with Trump at the center (or even on tape). None of which have anything to do with “official duties” as POTUS btw.

Trump did take documents to Mar A’ Lago. A crime that no doubt gets let slide if the guy returns them. But then he lies and attempts to hide these documents. Why?

These are things that all factually occurred. Not competing “narratives”.

 

But they did stall for long enough that none of those cases will be resolved before the election.

 

and there is de facto immunity.

 

Shits n giggles...

Ran a search for 'lawfare' here in too skank. Came back with 8 pages of posts. The earliest use applied to Trump /MAL goes all the way back to 2022:

FBI Executed a Warrant at Mar a Lago; the Investigation Continues

So it's not even new around here. Guess y'all just weren't payn attention.

Bitch on bro!

 

They've ALL done things that could be *characterized* as criminal.

Professional courtesy (honor among thieves?) prevented 45 POTEII before Doh! Biden from kicking that ant hill over (smashing that hornets nest--pick your analogy)...

Ain't no putting that shit back together--nothing left but to get bit/stung.

Bien venido a nuestro republica de platanos!

 

Does he have immunity from non-presidential duties while serving as president? Guess we run the risk of electing a president who will spend time in a courtroom and eventually may serve from jail then. So weird.

 

I would think the Jan 6 DC case is now DOA. I think Georgia stays open, and this has nothing to do with the document case since Trump wasn’t even president.

However, the document case is looking like it will be dead because if Trump wins — and Biden sure is doing his level best to ensure Trump wins — Trump can order the DOJ to shut down the case.

 

All done things that could be construed criminally? Sure.

The problem with perpetual victim Trump, is he seemingly wakes up every day concocting an assortment of criminal plots. Nobody needs to “construe” anything criminally against him. Hell on the Russia collusion stuff, which ironically never reached a chargeable crime, he literally asked a foreign adversary for help! Of course doing that openly at a rally could never alone be construed as a crime, but it’s f’in crazy.

 

There is no way his 1/6 was “official duties”, especially the conspiracy stuff which seemed to revolve around Giuliani and unofficial operators. None of that had to do with his duties as President or the role of govt. It was about his political campaign to get himself re-elected (or more accurately, to attempt to stay in power after losing an election).

I’m sure that would be the attempted argument, but it would be a hella dishonest take to judge it that way.

I think the greater reason the 1/6 case has an issue and is possibly not going to finish (if Trump wins), is the timeline and the corrupt judge who is likely to maximum delay.